Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 500 posts

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#421

Post by jfoutz »

GuiA wrote: post #396
t34543 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone have a hypothesis on why William Sidis made such a interesting pivot?

Somewhat similar stories with eg Grothendieck and Kaczynski. As the article points out, one of the properties of genius is that it can’t really be deliberately focused.

> one of the properties of genius is that it can’t really be deliberately focused

i think this is true. I think there is a statement that is a bit more crisp, genius focuses intensely on what it must.

I, an average person, can focus or not on whatever. perhaps i'm a genius. I'm not a fool, but i'm also not pushing the boundaries. Your phrasing gives me room to think i'm a genius. (i'm not).

Some folks, on the other hand, get hung up on details. And to those details matter a lot. They don't have a choice, in much the same way i don't have a choice about breathing. I'll do it if i want to or not. Genius is obsession. sometimes that obsession leads somewhere and we all benefit. but usually, it's just crazy guy ranting about squirrels.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#422

Post by TeMPOraL »

b_emery wrote: post #379
jacquesm wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, so sorry. If things are as bad as you sketch them then there may as well be a guild. Science is first and foremost about understanding, and writing in a way that purposefully obfuscates and makes it harder to understand what is communicated is anathema to true science.

You misunderstand the purpose - it's not intentional obfuscation. Its the lingua franca of the field. A technical term can define in one phrase an entire concept that would be tedious to spell out each and every time. It can define one 'chunk' that you can then combine with other chunks to develop deeper understanding. Surely you can agree with that? While I fully agree that ability to communicate science to the gene…

I don't think that's what 'jacquesm is talking about. It's not about the technical term that can communicate a lot of meaning in few characters. It's about constant use of obscure technical phrases that communicate the same or less than a plain-language description, except you have to work to decipher it. It's obfuscation, in a sense similar to what a JS obfuscator does to readable code.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#423

Post by TeMPOraL »

tomxor wrote: post #313
NPMaxwell wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They meant to stop him from his compulsive interest in electronics. They wanted him to play with other kids, play sports, run around. He seemed weird and they thought he would seem weird when he grew up. And running shop that fixes radios didn't look like success to them. (Until recently, "nerd" was a very offensive insult.)

> (Until recently, "nerd" was a very offensive insult.) In that sense, perhaps society has made a little progress, in socially embracing those that seem eccentric, quirky or uncomfortable - maybe not always for the right reasons, but it allows more people to be themselves and be happy.

I think it's less of actual progress, and more of economy: what was considered nerdy two decades ago, now is the easiest path to both upper-class and 1%-levels of wealth. People don't hate nerds anymore, they want to be them - not because the topics are interesting, but because they're a good career.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#424

Post by QueensGambit »

Rexxar wrote: post #370
QueensGambit wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot. But, the one I spent most time was in creating a programming language that stores its source code as parse tree instead of text file. If you rename a variable, it will automatically change all the code, UI and DB that refers it.

Does it have its own integrated source control ?

Yes. It was meant for novice programmers who don't understand refactoring. So, it had its own source control and UI to edit code.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#425

Post by plurinshael »

jakobmi wrote: post #114
tompccs wrote: post #16

I think this is correct. The bad news is we are creating systems which minimise the number of geniuses entering each field. In the past, science was an eccentric hobby, not particularly valued and certainly not a viable career option. Today it's all of these things - like becoming a doctor. Telling your mother you want to be a scientist is far better than saying you want to be a musician. A hundred years ago that wou…

The BIGGEST problem with research is this: it's HARD, not easy, to understand. Most papers written are absolute trash. Not because the content is. Because it's written in a shitty, overly braggy way (especially mathematics and physics), that's mostly shouting "I'm better than you and if you don't get it, you're an idiot". They are not written with any USER, let alone, READER, in mind. Anyone would immediately be fire…

I long for voice, for playful humor, for that je ne sais quoi of good writing! Robert Anton Wilson wrote a marvelous book called Quantum Psychology, where he uses the insights of quantum physics to upend the prevailing Aristotelian view of is / is not logic in psychology and in scientific thinking generally. It was a genuine pleasure to read, as I sensed the intelligent, interested, living being doing the writing all throughout. It felt intimate despite its serious nature. I just don't understand why writing about a scientific subject, even in an obscure and rarified field, gives you a pass on crafting a piece of writing someone might actually want to read, might actually connect with on an emotional level.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#426

Post by plurinshael »

pntnp wrote: post #393
drongoking wrote: post #323

Two reactions to this. I almost believe these: 1. The difference between collecting bus tickets, working on mathematics, and figuring the crystallization patterns of snowflakes is virtually nothing. To the people obsessed with it, it is all-important; to outsiders, all three look indistinguishably pointless. Only in retrospect can anyone say whether the activity led to something society considers important. The truly…

> 2. Genius is overrated. What? > But for nearly every invention and idea, history shows that multiple people were working on it at the same time. Not just "people" - "geniuses". History shows multiple geniuses were working on it at the same time. I do agree that we give too much credit to a single genius. Had Isaac Newton not lived, we'd still have calculus, physics, etc in some form or another. The same thing with…

For a long time, the Great Man theory dominated a lot of thinkers. Now there's a lot of pushback on the Great Man theory. I think I like both the theory and the pushback both. Reality's complicated.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#427

Post by plurinshael »

NPMaxwell wrote: post #135

You may think there is some rational choice to be made about obsessive curiosity. Maybe not. In 1960, my mom lived near a six year old who could fix electric stuff. Everyone in the neighborhood knew him and brought him things to fix. TV's were no problem; dead radios were great; telephones were cool. He was a super happy kid with a constant enthusiasm and a sparkle in his eye, running home from school every day to se…

This is very sad. I hope he figures it out.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#428

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

knzhou wrote: post #262
tompccs wrote: post #16

I think this is correct. The bad news is we are creating systems which minimise the number of geniuses entering each field. In the past, science was an eccentric hobby, not particularly valued and certainly not a viable career option. Today it's all of these things - like becoming a doctor. Telling your mother you want to be a scientist is far better than saying you want to be a musician. A hundred years ago that wou…

> In the past, science was an eccentric hobby, not particularly valued and certainly not a viable career option. Today it's all of these things - like becoming a doctor. Really! That's news to me. Are you aware of how much scientists are paid and their general career prospects?

The average tenured professor salary in the US is $141k. Star research directors with a proven record of bringing in grant money can easily earn two or three times that. In engineering, physics, med, and bio there are also lucrative consultancy opportunities.

The average scientist outside academia is probably doing grunt work and is paid badly - unless they're working in fintech, or something with an obvious financial upside.

The reality is that the entire research system is optimised for direct and indirect cash accumulation, not for genuine innovation or invention. There's some interest in blue sky funding, but if you're a fresh postgrad no grant body is going to give you a lot of money to go off and design a working warp drive unless you also have the bureaucratic skills to make your project sound like something they want to fund - probably for other reasons.

Researchers with good bureaucratic skills and genius-level scientific insights are exceptionally rare. And the publishing system isn't welcoming to talented semi-outsiders

Newton, Einstein, Darwin, and Ramanujan would really struggle in today's environment. Newton might be okay if he managed to get tenure, but the others not so much.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#429

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

This sounds like a retread of Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Instead of putting the hours in, put in obsession instead. Whether by accident or design, I can imagine it being a flattering message on HN for regulars and for startup founders.

It's wrong. No amount of hours or obsession compensates for lack of raw talent.

Innate ability sets a talent ceiling. Hard work/time/obsession refine and manifest raw talent where it's there, but can't compensate when it isn't. (And a bad environment can cripple it - but that's a different debate.)

The proof is that science, engineering, and math have plenty of very bright, very obsessive, very hard-working people. But they still produce very few no-doubt-about-it outright geniuses.

In fact genius is a rare combination of raw domain talent combined with outstanding creative imagination. The former provides the ability to produce outstanding work, the latter pushes it over the line with the potential for game-changing originality.

Together they can completely transform a domain instead of simply broadening it.

This is not the same as reapplying something already known in a clever and creative way - which is what talented and gifted people do.

Genius pioneers a fundamental change in the understanding of reality and massively expands what humans are capable of imagining and doing within it.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#430

Post by Cougher »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #429

This sounds like a retread of Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Instead of putting the hours in, put in obsession instead. Whether by accident or design, I can imagine it being a flattering message on HN for regulars and for startup founders. It's wrong. No amount of hours or obsession compensates for lack of raw talent. Innate ability sets a talent ceiling. Hard work/time/obsession refine and manifest raw talent where it's t…

"Innate ability sets a talent ceiling. Hard work/time/obsession refine and manifest raw talent where it's there, but can't compensate when it isn't. (And a bad environment can cripple it - but that's a different debate.)"

Absolutely. I can't stand it when someone says, "if I did it, anybody can." Not only is it wrong; it can be downright abusive.

Post reply on HN